Determination of Seasonal Changes of Feed Value of Common Grazeable Species Akkeçili Macquis Shrublands

Öz

This study was carried out in 2018-2020 to determine the forage values of 10 common shrub species (Quercus coccifera, Quercus infectoria, Fraxinus ornus, Fraxinus excelsior, Colutea melanocalyx, Coronilla emerus, Cotoneaster nummularia, Crataegus monogyna, Paliurus spina-christi, Juniperus oxycedrus) in the maquis area around Akkeçili village in Isparta. In the study, dry matter ratio, crude protein ratio (CP), NDF, ADF, total digestible nutrients (TSN), relative feed value (RFV) and tannin ratio were determined seasonally. According to the results of the analysis of variance, the difference between seasons and bush types was found to be statistically very significant in all the examined characteristics. Considering the results obtained on a seasonal basis, the highest CP, TDN and RFV were detected in the spring season, decreased with the progression of the seasons, and the lowest values were determined in the winter season. The lowest dry matter, ADF, NDF and tannin ratios were detected in the spring and increased as the seasons progressed. When the species were compared, the lowest dry matter ratio was found in C. melanocalyx, NDF and ADF ratio in P. Spina-christi and C. melanocalyx, condensed tannin ratio in F. excelsior, F. ornus, C. melanocalyx and C. emerus. The highest CP was obtained from C. emerus, TDN P. spina-christi and RFV C. melanocalyx species. As a result, it has been determined that the shrub, shrub-shaped tree and shrub species in the maquis have the potential to produce quality feed for ruminants in the critical period in semi-arid and arid regions.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Crude Protein Ratio
• Relative Feed Value
• Season
• Shrub and Tannin Content

Akkeçili Makilik Alanlarında Otlanabilen Yaygın Çalı Türlerinin Yem Değerlerindeki Mevsimsel Değişiminin Belirlenmesi

Öz

Bu araştırma Isparta Akkeçili köyü çevresinde bulunan makilik alanda otlanabilen yaygın 10 çalı türünün (Quercus coccifera, Quercus infectoria, Fraxinus ornus, Fraxinus excelsior, Colutea melanocalyx, Coronilla emerus, Cotoneaster nummularia, Crataegus monogyna, Paliurus spina-christi, Juniperus oxycedrus) yem değerlerinin tespit edilmesi amacıyla 2018-2020 yıllarında yürütülmüştür. Çalışmada türlerin kuru madde oranı (KMO), ham protein oranı (HPO), NDF, ADF toplam sindirilebilir besin maddesi (TSBM), nispi yem değeri (NYD) ve tanen oranı mevsimsel olarak belirlenmiştir. Varyans analizi sonuçlarına göre, mevsimler ve çalı türleri arasındaki farklılık incelenen bütün özelliklerde çok önemli bulunmuştur. Elde edilen sonuçlar mevsimler bazında ele alındığında, en yüksek HPO, TSBM ve NYD ilkbahar mevsiminde tespit edilmiş, mevsimlerin ilerlemesi ile beraber düşmüş, en düşük değerler ise kış mevsiminde tespit edilmiştir. En düşük KMO, ADF, NDF ve tanen oranı ilkbaharda tespit edilmiş ve mevsimler ilerledikçe yükselmiştir. Türler karşılaştırıldığında ise en düşük kuru madde oranı C. melanocalyx, NDF ve ADF oranı P. spina-christi ve C. melanocalyx, kondanse tanen oranı F. excelsior, F. ornus, C. melanocalyx ve C. emerus’ta tespit edilmiştir. En yüksek HPO C. emerus, TSBM P. spina-christi ve NYD C. melanocalyx türlerinden elde edilmiştir. Sonuç olarak maki içerisinde yer alan çalı, çalı formunu almış ağaç ve ağaççık türlerinin yarı kurak ve kurak bölgelerde kritik dönemde ruminantlar için kaliteli yem üretebilme potansiyeline sahip olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Çalı
• Ham Protein Oranı
• Mevsim
• Nispi Yem Değeri ve Tanen

Kaynakça

1. Açıkgöz, E. (2001). Yem Bitkileri (3. Baskı). Uludağ Üniversitesi Bursa, Güçlendirme Vakfı Yayın VİPAŞ A.Ş.
2. Akyıldız, A.R. (1966). Yeşil Yemlerin Saklanması, Yedek Yemler, Ticaret Yemleri, Yemler Bilgisi. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları, Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
3. Akyıldız, A.R. (1984). Yemler Bilgisi Laboratuvar Kılavuzu (İlave İkinci Baskı). Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları, Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi.
4. Alatürk, F., Alpars, T., Gökkuş, A., Coşkun, E., & Akbağ, H. (2014). Bazı türlerin besin maddesi içeriklerinin mevsimsel değişimi. Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi, 2(1), 133-141.
5. Altın, M., Gökkuş, A., & Koç, A. (2021). Çayır Mera Islahı (İkinci baskı). Ankara, Palme Yayınevi.
6. AOAC, (1990). Official Methods of Analysis 15th edition. Washington, DC, USA. Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
7. Aygün, C., Kara, İ., Hanoğlu Oral, H., Erdoğdu, İ., Atalay, A.K., & Sever, A.L. (2018). Bazı çalı bitkilerinin mevsimsel (ilkbahar, yaz, sonbahar) yaprak verimleri, besin madde içerikleri ve rumende parçalanma düzeyinin belirlenmesi. Bahri Dağdaş Hayvancılık Araştırma Dergisi, 7(1), 7-17.
8. Aygün, C., Olgun, M., Potoğlu Erkara, İ., Koyuncu, O., Ardıç, M., & Sezer, O. (2020). Krascheninnikovia ceratoides (L.) Gueldenst, Atriplex canescens (Pursh.) Nutt, Quercus infectoria G. Olivier ve Quercus robur L.’un Yem Olarak Kullanılabilirliği. Biyolojik Çeşitlilik ve Koruma, 13(3), 209-216.

9. Ayhan, V., Tolunay, A., & Adiyaman, E. (2009). The effects of different vegetation periods on chemical composition of kermes oak (Quercus coccifera L.). Asian Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 4(2), 99-103. https://doi.org/10.3923/ajava.2009.99.103
10. Bakoğlu, A., Koç, A., & Gökkuş, A. (1999). Dominant mer’a bitkilerinin biomas ve kimyasal kompozisyonlarının büyüme dönemindeki değişimi, II. kimyasal kompozisyondaki değişimler. Türk Tarım ve Orman Dergisi, 23(2), 495-508.
11. Baytekin, H., Yurtman, İ.Y., & Savaş, T. (2005). Süt Keçiciliğinde Kaba Yem Üretim Organizasyonu. Süt Keçiciliği Ulusal Kongresi, 26-27 Mayıs 2005, İzmir. 26-27.
12. Bouazza, L., Bodas, R., Boufennara, S., Bousseboua, H., & Lopez, S. (2012). Nutritive evaluation of foliage from fodder trees and shrubs characteristic of Algerian arid and semi–arid areas. Journal Animal Feeding Science, 21(3), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.22358/jafs/66126/2012
13. Brooker, J.D., O'donovan, L.A., Skene, I., Clarke, K., Blackall, L., & Muslera, P. (1994). Streptococcus caprinus sp. nov., a tannin‐resistant ruminal bacterium from feral goats. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 18(6), 313-318.
14. Castle, M.E. (1982). Feeding high quality silage. In: Silage for Milk Production. NIRD/HRI Technical Bulletin No. 2, 127–150.
15. Cevheri, A. C., & Avcıoğlu, R. (1998). Bornova Koşullarında 11 Farklı Yonca Çeşidinin Verim ve Diğer Bazı Verim Özellikleri Üzerinde Araştırmalar. (Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Ege Üniversitesi, Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü)
16. Düzgüneş, O., Kesici, T., Kavuncu, O., & Gürbüz, F. (1987). Araştırma ve Deneme Metodları (İstatistik Metotları II). Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları.
17. Frost, R.A., Wilson, L.M., Launchbaugh, K.L., & Hovde, E.M. (2008). Seasonal change in forage value of rangeland weeds in Northern Idaho. Invasive Plant Science and Manage. 1(4), 343-351. https://doi.org/10.1614/IPSM-07-061.1
18. González‐Andrés, F., & Ceresuela, J.L. (1998). Chemical composition of some Iberian Mediterranean leguminous shrubs potentially useful for forage in seasonally dry areas. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 41(2), 139-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1998.9513297
19. Gökkuş, A., Özaslan Parlak, A., Hakyemez, H., Baytekin, H., & Parlak, M. (2009). Maki Örtüsünde Yer Alan Bitki Türlerinin Botanik Özellikleri ile Besleme Değerlerindeki Değişimin Belirlenmesi. TÜBİTAK TOVAG Projesi, Proje No: 106O458, 147s.
20. Griffin, J.L., & Jung. G.A. (1983). Leaf and stem forage quality of big bluestem and switchgrass. Agronomy Journal, 75(5), 723-726. https://doi.org/10.2134/agronj1983.00021962007500050002x
21. Gutman, M., Henkin, Z., & Hlzer, Z. (1999). Comparative performance of beef cattle on herbaceous and woody vegetation. Grassland and Science in Europe, May, Thessaloniki, Greece, 4, 365-371.
22. Gutteridge, R.C., & Shelton, H.M. (1998). Forage Tree Legumes in Tropical Agriculture. Wallingford: Cab International.
23. Hagerman, E.A. (1987). Radial diffusion method for determining tannin in plant extracts. Journal of Chemical Ecology, 13(3), 437-449. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01880091
24. Holechek, J.L., Estell, R.E., Kuykendall, C.B., Valdez, R., Cardenas, M., & Nunez-Hernandez, G. (1989). Seeded wheatgrass yield and nutritive quality on New Mexico big sagebrush range. Journal Range Management, 42(2), 118-122.
25. Horrocks R.D., & Vallentine J.F. (1999). Harvested Forages. Academic Press, London, UK.
26. Huston, J.E., & Pinchak, W.E. (1991). Range animal nutrition. Grazing management an ecological perspective. 27-63.
27. Jung, H.G., & Allen, M.S. (1995). Characteristics of plant cell walls affecting intake and digestibility of forages by ruminants. Journal of Animal Science, 73(9), 2774–2790.
28. Kamalak, A. (2006). Determination of nutritive value of leaves of a native grown shrub, Glycyrrhiza glabra L. using in vitro and in situ measurements. Small Ruminant Research, 64(3), 268–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smallrumres.2003.09.003
29. Kamalak, A., Canbolat, Ö., Gürbüz, Y., Özay, O., Erer, M., & Özkan, Ç.Ö. (2005). Kondense tanenin rumimant hayvanlar üzerindeki etkileri hakkında bir inceleme. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Fen ve Mühendislik Dergisi, 8(1), 132-137.
30. Khorchani, T., Hammadi, M., Abdouli, H., & Essid, H. (2000). Determination of Chemical Composition and in vitro Digestibility in Four Halophytic Shrubs in Southern Tunisia. Native and Exotic Fodder Shrubs in Arid and Semi-Arid Zones. October 27–November 2, 1996, Hammamet, Tunisia, 540-550.
31. Koç, A. (2000). Turkish rangelands and shrub culture. Rangelands, 22(4), 25–26. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_rangelands_v22i4_koc
32. Koç, A., Gökkuş, A., Bakoğlu, A., & Özaslan, A. (2000). Temporal variation in chemical properties of plant samples during grazing season from Palandoken rangelands Erzurum. Proceedings of the International Animal Nutrition Congress, September 4-6, Isparta, 471–478.
33. Kökten, K., Kaplan, M., Hatipoğlu, R., Saruhan, V., & Çınar, S. (2012). Nutritive value of Mediterranean shrubs. The Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 22(1), 188-194.
34. Lyons, R.K., Machen, R., & Forbes, T.D.A. (1996). Why Range Forage Quality Changes. Bulletin/Texas Agricultural Extension Service; no. 6036. 7p.
35. Mahipala, M.K., Krebs, G.L., McCafferty, P., & Dods, K. (2009). Effects of supplementation with Chamaecytisus palmensis, grown in the Western Australian Mediterranean environment, on the nutritive value of sheep diets. Small Ruminant Research, 84(1-3), 54-60.
36. Makkar, H.P.S. (2003). Effects and fate of tannins in ruminant animals, adaptation to tannins, and strategies to overcome detrimental effects of feeding tannin-rich feeds. Small Ruminant Research, 49(3), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00142-1
37. Moore, J.E., & Undersander, D.J. (2002). Relative forage quality: A proposal for replacement for relative feed value. 2002 Proceedings National Forage Testing Association.
38. Mueller–Harvey, I., & Dhanoa, M.S. (1991). Varietal differences amongst sorghum crop residues in relation to their phenolic HPLC fingerprints and responses to different environments. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 57(2), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2740570206
39. Muruz, H., Baytok, E., Aksu, T., & Terzioglu, O. (2000). Erciş-Altındere tarım işletmesi doğal merasının kalitesi. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Veteriner Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 66-70.
40. Narvaez, N., Brosh, A., & Pittroff, W. (2010). Seasonal dynamics of nutritional quality of California chaparral species. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 158(1-2), 44–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2010.03.014
41. National Research Council, (2001). Nutrient Requirements of Dairy Cattle. Washington, DC., National Academic Science.
42. Nelson, C.J. & Moser, L.E. (1994). Plants factors affecting forage quality. In Forage Quality, Evaluation and Utilization. 115–154.
43. Papachristou, T.G., & Papanastasis V.P. (1994). Forage value of Mediterranean deciduous woody fodder species and its implication to management of silvo-pastoral systems for goats. Agroforestry Systems, 27(3), 269-282. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00705061
44. Papachristou, T.G. (1997). Foraging behaviour of goats and sheep on Mediterranean kermes oak shrublands. Small Ruminant Research, 24(2), 85-93. Doi: 10.1016/S0921-4488(96)00942-X
45. Papachristou, T.G., Nastis, A.S., Mathur, R., & Hutchings, M.R. (2003). Effect of physical and chemical plant defenses on herbivory: Implications for Mediterranean shrubland management. Basic and Applied Ecology, 4(5), 395–403.
46. Papachristou, T.G., Plastis, P.D., Papanastasis, V.P., & Tsiouvaras, C.N. (1999). Use of deciduous woody species as a diet supplement for goats grazing mediterranean shrublands during the dry season, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 80(3-4), 267-279.
47. Parlak, A.O., Gokkus, A., Hakyemez, B.H., & Baytekin, H. (2011a). Shrub yield and forage quality in Mediterranean shrublands of west Turkey for a period of one year. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(7), 1726-1734.
48. Parlak, A.O., Gokkus, A., Hakyemez, B.H., & Baytekin, H. (2011b). Forage yield and quality of kermes oak and herbaceous species throughout a year in Mediterranean zone of western Turkey. Journal of Food, Agriculture and Environment, 9(1), 510-515.
49. Parlak, A.O., Gokkus, A., Hakyemez, B.H., & Baytekin, H. (2011c). Forage quality of deciduous woody and herbaceous species throughout a year in Mediterranean shrublands of Western Turkey. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 21(3), 513-518.
50. Parlak, M., Gökkuş, A., & Parlak Özaslan, A. (2012). Çanakkale meralarında bazı çalıların toprak özelliklerine etkileri. Toprak Su Dergisi, 1(2), 88-98.
51. Pecetti, L., Tava, A., Pagnotta, M.A., & Russi, L. (2007). Variations in forage quality and chemical composition among Italian accessions of Bituminaria bituminosa (L.), Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87(6), 985-991. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2792
52. Perevolotsky, A., Landau, S., Kababya, D., & Ungar, E.D. (1998). Diet selection in dairy goats grazing woody Mediterranean rangeland. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 57(1-2), 117-131. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1591(97)00120-2
53. Piluzza, G., Sulas, L., & Bullitta, S. (2014). Tannins in forage plants and their role in animal husbandry and environmental sustainability. Grass and Forage Science, 69(1), 32-48. https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12053
54. Pollock, M.L., Legg, C.J., Holland, J.P., & Theobald, C.M. (2007). Assessment of expert opinion: seasonal sheep preference and plant response to grazing. Rangeland Ecology & Management 60(2), 125-135. https://doi.org/10.2111/06-032R2.1
55. Silva-Pando, F.J., Gonzalez Hernandez, M.P., & Castro Garcia, P. (1999). Nutritional characteristics of some common woody plants in shrublands of Galicia (Northwest Iberian Peninsula). Grassland and Science in Europe. (pp. 121-125).
56. Steen, R.W.J. (1992). The performance of beef cattle given silages made from perennial ryegrasses of different maturity groups, cut on different dates. Grass Forage Science, 47(3), 239–248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2494.1992.tb02268.x
57. Temel, S. (2007). Erdemli (Mersin) Yöresi Makiliklerinde Türlerin Tespiti ve Yem Değerlerinin Belirlenmesi Üzerine Bir Araştırma. (Doktora Tezi, Atatürk Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü)
58. Temel, S. (2015). Vejetatif ve tohum olgunlaştırma döneminde Salsola tragus L. ve Noaea mucronata (Forssk.) Asch. & Schweinf.’nin yem kalite özelliklerinin belirlenmesi, Uluslararası Tarım ve Yaban Hayatı Bilimleri Dergisi, 1(1), 23-30.
59. Tolera, A., Khazaal, K., & Orskov, E.R. (1997). Nutritive evaluation of some browses species, Animal Feed Science and Technology, 67(2-3), 181–195.
60. Tolunay, A., Adıyaman, E., Akyol, A., & İnce, D. (2009). Herbage growth and fodder yield characteristics of kermes oak (Quercus coccifera L.) in a vegetation period. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 8(2), 290-294.
61. Tölü, C. (2009). Farklı Keçi Genotiplerinde Davranış, Sağlık ve Performans Özellikleri Üzerine Araştırmalar. (Doktora Tezi, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü)
62. Tsiouvaras, C.N. (1987). Ecology and management of kermes oak (Quercus coccifera L.) shrublands in Greece. Journal of Range Management, 40(6), 542-546. Doi: 10.2307/3898877
63. Türk, M., Alagöz, M., & Bıçakçı, E. (2018). Seasonal changes in the morphological traitments and forage quality of kermes oak (Quercus coccifera L.). Animal Science-The International Session of Scientific Communications of the Faculty of Animal Science, 61(2), 86-89.
64. Van Soest, P. J., Robertson, J. B., & Lewis, B. A. (1991). Methods for dietary fiber, neutral detergent fiber, non-starch polysaccharides in relation to animal nutrition. Journal of Dairy Science, 71, 3583-3597.
65. Ventura, M.R., Castanon, J.I.R., Pieltain, M.C., & Flores, M.P. (2004). Nutritive value of forage shrubs: Bituminaria bituminosa, Rumex lunaria, Acacia salicina, Cassi sturtii and Adenocarpus foliosu. Small Ruminant Research, 52(1-2), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-4488(03)00225-6
66. Ventura, M.R., Flores, M.P., & Castanon, J.I.R. (1999). Nutritive value of forage shrubs: Bituminaria bituminosa, Acacia salicina and Medicago arborea. Cashiers Options Mediterranean, 39, 171–173.
67. Vrahnakis, M. S., Fotiadis, G., Chouvardas, D., Mantzanas, K., & Papanastasis, V. P. (2005). Components of Floristic Diversity in Kermes Oak Shrublands. 13th International Occasional Symposium of the European Grassland Federation, August 29-31, Tartu, Estonia, 149-152.
68. Yılmaz, K.T. (1996). Akdeniz Doğal Bitki Örtüsü, Adana, Çukurova Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Yayınları.
69. Yüksel, O., & Duru, A.A. (2019). Uşak ili doğal vejetasyonlarında bulunan bazı türlerin besin maddesi içeriklerinin dönemsel değişimi. Türk Tarım ve Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 6(2), 324-331.